category, the genus Australopithecus, means "southern
ape," as we have said. It is assumed that these creatures
first appeared in Africa about 4 million years ago, and lived
until 1 million years ago. There are a number of different
species among the australopithecines. Evolutionists assume
that the oldest Australopithecus species is A. afarensis.
After that comes A. africanus, and then A. robustus,
which has relatively bigger bones. As for A. Boisei,
some researchers accept it as a different species, and others
as a sub-species of A. Robustus.
All of the Australopithecus species
are extinct apes that resemble the apes of today. Their cranial
capacities are the same or smaller than the chimpanzees of
our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet
which they used to climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees,
and their feet are built for grasping to hold onto branches.
Many other characteristics-such as the details in their skulls,
the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their
mandibular structure, their long arms, and their short legs-constitute
evidence that these creatures were no different from today's
ape. However, evolutionists claim that, although australopithecines
have the anatomy of apes, unlike apes, they walked upright
and skeletons closely resemble those of modern apes.
The drawing to the side shows a chimpanzee on the
left, and an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton on
the right. Adrienne L. Zhilman, the professor of anatomy
who did the drawing, stresses that the structures
of the two skeletons are very similar. (above)
An Australopithecus robustus skull.
It bears a close resemblance to that of modern apes.
Scientific discoveries have left evolutionist assumptions
regarding "Lucy," once considered the most important
example of the Australopithecus genus, completely unfounded.
The famous French scientific magazine, Science et
Vie, accepted this truth under the headline "Goodbye,
Lucy," in its February 1999 issue, and confirmed that
Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of
that australopithecines walked upright is
a view that has been held by paleoanthropologists such as
Richard Leakey and Donald C. Johanson for decades. Yet many
scientists who have carried out a great deal of research on
the skeletal structures of australopithecines have proved
the invalidity of that argument. Extensive research done on
various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renowned anatomists
from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles
Oxnard, showed that these creatures did not walk upright in
human manner. Having studied the bones of these fossils for
a period of 15 years thanks to grants from the British government,
Lord Zuckerman and his team of five specialists reached the
conclusion that australopithecines were only an ordinary
species of ape, and were definitely not bipedal,
although Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself.186
Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who is another evolutionary
anatomist famous for his research on the subject, also likened
the skeletal structure of australopithecines to that of modern
That Australopithecus cannot be counted
an ancestor of man has recently been accepted by evolutionist
sources. The famous French popular scientific magazine Science
et Vie made the subject the cover of its May 1999 issue.
Under the headline "Adieu Lucy"-Lucy being
the most important fossil example of the species Australopithecus
afarensis-the magazine reported that apes of the species
Australopithecus would have to be removed from the
human family tree. In this article, based on the discovery
of another Australopithecus fossil known simply as
St W573, the following sentences appear:
AFARENSIS AND CHIMPANZEES
top is the AL 444-2 Australopithecus afarensis skull,
and on the bottom a skull of a modern chimpanzee. The
clear resemblance between them is an evident sign that
A. afarensis is an ordinary species of ape,
with no human characteristics.
A new theory states
that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human
race… The results arrived at by the only woman authorized
to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories
regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid
family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of
man, have been removed from the equation of this family
tree… Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear
on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting
to be discovered.188
186 Solly Zuckerman,
Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New
York, 1970, pp. 75-94.
187 Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place of Australopithecines
in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt," Nature, vol.
258, 4 December 1975, p. 389.
188 Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy," Science
et Vie, May 1999, no. 980, pp. 52-62. (emphasis added)